So when you claimed that most people who bothered to look have referred to you as a gal, you weren't claiming to be a woman instead of a man named Lonny Eachus?
So after you cheered for entrepreneurs with testicles and someone objected, you asked "who should be more offended than me?" because you couldn't imagine that actual women might be more offended than a man like Lonny Eachus who poses as a woman on the internet?
So now you're denying that you ever claimed to be a woman. Are you lying, or have you already forgotten all the links above? Haven't you noticed your pseudonym? It's supposed to tell everyone you're not a dude like Lonny Eachus. This isn't a game of 20 questions. It's just one question, repeated 20 times or more if necessary. Are you Lonny Eachus?
I never asked you to say what your identity is. I simply asked you to confirm what you've been saying for years, that you're a woman who can't possibly be a man named Lonny Eachus. I'm just asking you to say what your identity isn't. Should be easy, unless you're a pathological liar like Lonny Eachus.
If you aren't Lonny Eachus, and are in fact a woman who isn't a man named Lonny Eachus, then you shouldn't have a problem saying that. After all, it's not like you're a pathological liar, right?
So just to be clear, you're swearing on your honor that you (Jane Q. Public) are not Lonny Eachus? Jane Q. Public is placing all her credibility on her claim that Jane is a woman who isn't a man named Lonny Eachus? Please answer directly for the historical record.
How hard could it be to understand that Lonny Eachus is reinforcing sexist female stereotypes by posing as a woman who's completely irrational, expects special treatment and can't keep a single thought straight in his head for more than a couple of minutes and then getting hyper-emotional when called on it?
Very hard, apparently, judging by Jane/Lonny's hilarity. It's okay when Lonny acts out all these sexist female stereotypes as "@eachus" because at least that way people see that some men also exhibit these negative traits. In this sense, Lonny's tantrums actually fight these sexist female stereotypes. But when Lonny Eachus poses as Jane Q. Public and acts the same way, those pathological lies make all women look bad. Maybe this would be clearer if Jane hadn't ignored my first comment, so here it is again:
This is such disingenuous bullshit that I hardly know where to begin. But I'll try: First, point out where I told a lie. Please be specific. Calling me a liar without specific proof could be construed as libel. I've warned you about this before. (But of course, in order for that to be true it would also have to be about ME, not somebody else.)... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-06-27]
Very well. Let's cut the bullshit. You are Lonny Eachus, a man posing as Jane Q. Public who liesaboutbeingfemale. By now that's almost a dozen links where Lonny Eachus lies about his own gender. How could anyone trust Lonny Eachus to tell the truth about anything important when Lonny Eachus lies about his own gender?
Your lame attempts to deflect attention away from your pathological lies must seem pathetic even to you. I don't need to justify [A] debunking your public civilization-paralyzing misinformation. In fact, considering the stakes, I'd have to justify ignoring it. I can't.
Lonny Eachus's sock-puppet account "Jane Q. Public" finds [B] sock-puppet accounts to be unacceptable behavior, and piles paranoia on that irony by wrongly accusing me [D] of creating an account with a hacked name that looked exactly like Jane Q. Public. I watched that hilarious incident, but I don't know how they hacked Jane Q. Public's name when it should've already been taken. If you ever find out who did that, please let me know because I'd like to buy them a drink. And if you ever find the missing [C] in your list, please let me know.
How funny that you're still speculating about illegal behavior, after I told you that I'm just debunking your public comments while you've quoted from illegally obtained private emails. In fact, you've even argued that up-skirt panty shots should be legal because they happen in public:
"... Did they show you their genitals on purpose? Is she hanging out of her dress in order to give you a peek? Or are you snooping?... if you're sitting across from someone on the bus, how can they prove they didn't intend to uncross their legs while wearing no panties; they simply slipped or forgot. (Actually, forgot shouldn't be an exception anyway because that's negligence. But it's still a lack of intent.) As for (2), let's say they flash you deliberately, you take a picture (because after all, it's public), and then later they lie about their "intent". What about the woman who has sex at a party and then when she sobers up lies because she regrets her actions? Hell, things like
See your entire posting history. That anonymous woman described you perfectly: "completely irrational, expecting special treatment and unable to keep a single thought straight in your head for more than a couple of minutes and then getting hyper-emotional when called on it."
But since you asked, here are a few more examples where Lonny Eachus, through his Jane sock-puppet, has reinforced sexist stereotypes:
"Talk about crybabies. Sheesh. She complains about a phenomenon that is caused by women (since studies for over 20 years have repeatedly and consistently shown that women simply tend not to choose to go into STEM careers in the first place), then uses that as a springboard to further complain that she doesn't get enough Federal assistance for women! I mean, come on! It's one thing to discuss the issue of "not enough women in IT" (which has been discussed to death already), and quite another to so blatantly whine about it."[Jane Q. Public, 2012-05-27]
"... Then there are those who simply prefer to ignore the facts and treat it like some kind of giant male conspiracy. I think you can tell which side of that fence I am on."[Jane Q. Public, 2012-05-27]
"... for every "OMG I'm offended!" pseudo-feminist out there, there is another who really, really enjoys being slobbered over as a booth babe...."[Jane Q. Public, 2013-06-27]
"...most women decided on careers outside of tech before they even entered high school. Based on personal preferences, not some perception (real or otherwise) of discrimination...."[Jane Q. Public, 2014-03-04]
"... most "feminists" I have met did not really want equality; they wanted advantage."[Jane Q. Public, 2014-04-26]
"... men should take some responsibility for birth control (condoms or whatever), but to trick somebody in that manner and then try to hold them responsible is one of the most despicable acts I can imagine. In general I would call it worse than rape because, again in general, it will have longer and more profound, tangible effect...."[Jane Q. Public, 2012-08-20]
Jane seems to claim that child support payments are more profound and last longer than psychological scars, which instantly vanish after 18 years (right?). My personal reaction involved the world's smallest violin, and astonishment that a woman would make such a claim. I'm not astonished anymore, but note thatequatingballswithcouragemightoffend actual
This is such disingenuous bullshit that I hardly know where to begin. But I'll try: First, point out where I told a lie. Please be specific. Calling me a liar without specific proof could be construed as libel. I've warned you about this before. (But of course, in order for that to be true it would also have to be about ME, not somebody else.)... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-06-27]
Very well. Let's cut the bullshit. You are Lonny Eachus, a man posing as Jane Q. Public who liesaboutbeingfemale. By now that's almost a dozen links where Lonny Eachus lies about his own gender. How could anyone trust Lonny Eachus to tell the truth about anything important when Lonny Eachus lies about his own gender?
Your lame attempts to deflect attention away from your pathological lies must seem pathetic even to you. I don't need to justify [A] debunking your public civilization-paralyzing misinformation. In fact, considering the stakes, I'd have to justify ignoring it. I can't.
Lonny Eachus's sock-puppet account "Jane Q. Public" finds [B] sock-puppet accounts to be unacceptable behavior, and piles paranoia on that irony by wrongly accusing me [D] of creating an account with a hacked name that looked exactly like Jane Q. Public. I watched that hilarious incident, but I don't know how they hacked Jane Q. Public's name when it should've already been taken. If you ever find out who did that, please let me know because I'd like to buy them a drink. And if you ever find the missing [C] in your list, please let me know.
How funny that you're still speculating about illegal behavior, after I told you that I'm just debunking your public comments while you've quoted from illegally obtained private emails. In fact, you've even argued that up-skirt panty shots should be legal because they happen in public:
"... Did they show you their genitals on purpose? Is she hanging out of her dress in order to give you a peek? Or are you snooping?... if you're sitting across from someone on the bus, how can they prove they didn't intend to uncross their legs while wearing no panties; they simply slipped or forgot. (Actually, forgot shouldn't be an exception anyway because that's negligence. But it's still a lack of intent.) As for (2), let's say they flash you deliberately, you take a picture (because after all, it's public), and then later they lie about their "intent". What about the woman who has sex at a party and then when she sobers up lies because she regrets her actions? Hell, things like that have happened throughout history, and of course it's not just women, or sex...."[Jane Q. Public, 2014-03-07]
"...I've been in LOTS of situations in which things under a dress were made public... intentionally or otherwise. But at least some of those times were definitely intentional...."[Jane Q. Public, 2014-03-07]
"... some woman standing on those steps lifts up her dress.... it isn't a matter of "her asking for it", like some people would say if she walked down the wrong alley at night in a skimpy dress. (You and I would probably agree t
Initially I only cared about debunking your endless flood of misinformation (more on that later) but here's another reason why I care:
"... You are really pissing me off here because you are acting out the worst sexist stereotypes of women: completely irrational, expecting special treatment and unable to keep a single thought straight in your head for more than a couple of minutes and then getting hyper-emotional when called on it. You are the kind of woman who makes it that much harder for the rest of us women to be judged on our abilities instead of the same old, ugly stereotypes you've spent the day reinforcing right here. Shame on you."[Someone to Jane, 2012-09-09]
That anonymous woman would probably be even more pissed off (justifiably so) to find out that Jane is actually a man posing as a woman on the internet. It's bad enough when actual women reinforce sexist female stereotypes, but it's utterlyunacceptable for men to pose as women to make all women lookbad.
So why do I care? I care because I have a mother, a grandmother, aunts, sisters, and nieces who indirectly suffer because of the sexist stereotypes you're acting out. Please stop lying, and please try to find it in your heart to stop posing as a woman while reinforcing sexist female stereotypes.
It might be a romantic coincidence that Jane and Lonny Eachus are both Sky Dragon Slayers, 9/11 Truthers, and Obama Birthers who deny the existence of dark matter/energy and dislike the word homophobe. Jane isn't a lesbian, Lonny Eachus isn't gay, and both Jane and Lonny Eachus have ferrets and talk about asshole diameter. So if you two lovebirds aren't already hooking up, you really should!
It hardly seems credible that with all that world record cold virtually everywhere (except for the Pacific El Nino event), that May could have ALSO been a "record warm" month. It just doesn't add up. Just like so many of NOAA's other figures.... When you have huge areas of the globe showing normal to historical record lows, then in order for the Earth to be "warmer than normal", much less record warm, you would also have to have large areas that were extraordinarily hot during the same period. I have seen no evidence of such. Do you have some? TFA certainly did not provide any. [Jane Q. Public]
The linked NOAA article certainly did provide maps of May temperature anomalies and May temperature percentiles. Far from showing "world record cold virtually everywhere" they show absolutely no "record coldest" grids, and quite a few "record warmest" grids.
The entire continental U.S., even when you factor in the areas in the Pacific that were experiencing El Nino, experienced record cold for the entire first 5 months of 2014. USHCN's own raw data.
Again, no. I've previously told you that we're not experiencing El Nino yet, but obviously you ignored NOAA in favor of your uncited "neighborhood meteorologist". NOAA still states that "ENSO-neutral conditions continue" but forecasts a 70% chance of an El Nino this summer.
And again, May temperature percentiles show that only Louisiana and south Texas were even "cooler than average" (not "much cooler than average" or "record coldest"). The rest of the continental U.S. was either near average, warmer than average, or much warmer than average (especially Alaska).
Pardon me. NOAAs figures are that ocean rise has been about 0.9mm per year since 2010. Projecting backward (which I am not sure is a valid technique, Mann nothwithstanding) would give a rise of about 3". So by projection only, without researching actual historical data this Sunday evening, I concede that 3" may be a reasonable figure.
So instead of researching actual historical data by simply clicking on the link I provided, you ignored the uncertainties on 4 years of data and project a highly uncertain short term "trend" backwards over 100 years? Wow.
Most extinctions are caused by multiple stresses; rapid CO2 emissions stress ecosystems via rapid warming and ocean acification. Rapid warming during the PETM stressed the land, causing turnover and causing insects to proliferate but causing no major extinctions. Rapid warming and ocean acidification induced by rapid CO2 emissions affected the oceans, causing the benthic extinction event that Alagret et al. 2009 attributed mainly to the rapid warming due to rapid CO2 emissions. Since ocean acidification affected benthic species but not land species, it's either responsible for the fact that the PETM affected benthic species worse than on land... or something else is. Regardless, we can agree that the most significant stresses leading to PETM benthic extinctions are CO2-induced rapid warming and CO2-induced ocean acidification.
I see no real argument for saying that the PETM had significant ocean acidification yet this isn't the first it's been trotted out as an example of the dire effects of ocean acidification. [khallow]
And the amount it has actually risen in the Marshalls is roughly about 3". Even then, attributing this to "Climate Change" is a bit of a leap. Even though water has risen there "more than the global average", that's really not saying much since the global average is something like 1/4" over the last century. (Roughly... I don't remember the exact figure.) [Jane Q. Public]
Quoting 3" for the Marshalls makes it clear that Jane is talking about the total sea level rise, not the annual rise. Total global average sea level rise over the last century (1914-2014) is more like ~6 inches (see fig. 5 of Church and White 2011. Jane obviously doesn't remember the exact figure, because the rise Jane's memory provides is ~24x smaller than the actual observed rise.
I would have to collect some formulas together and actually do some math... but in general, as temperature goes up, the solubility of CO2 in water decreases. So I am curious how alarmists are claiming both that the temperature will go up, and the amount of dissolved CO2 will also go up. Those two things would seem to work against each other. [Jane Q. Public]
They do work against each other, but our CO2 emissions are so rapid that they overwhelm the solubility effect. Once again, what you're dismissing as "alarmism" is actually mainstream science. Temperatures are going up, and dissolved CO2 is also going up.
I tried to explain this point at WUWT, to no avail: Use Henry’s Law to calculate the CO2 due to the ~0.8C surface warming since the Industrial Revolution. You’ll find that only ~20ppm of the actual ~100ppm rise could even hypothetically be explained by the ocean outgassing
So the reason CO2 in the ocean can increase at the same time surface temperatures increase is because that CO2 comes from our use of fossil fuels, not ocean outgassing. And we're adding to the atmosphere much faster than the warming oceans can lose their dissolved CO2 due to Henry's Law.
"Ocean Acidification” is an up-and-coming buzz phrase used by global warming alarmists. They say it will harm sea life like coral. [Lonny Eachus]
Caused by CO2, of course. The problem with that theory is that coral evolved when CO2 concentration was *70 TIMES* what it is now. [Lonny Eachus]
"Warmists" like to scare over things like death of coral due to ocean acidification from CO2. Coral evolved at a time of 70x today’s CO2. [Lonny Eachus]
The degree of "doomedness" is highly questionable. I don't dispute that human activities have harmed coral in many cases. But coral evolved when it was both warmer than it is now, AND the concentration of CO2 was many times what it is today.... [Jane Q. Public]
If atmospheric CO2 increases slowly, ocean pH doesn't change significantly because it's buffered by carbonates and land weathering on long time scales. See Fig. 2 in Honisch et al. 2012 (PDF):
"When CO2 dissolves in seawater, it reacts with water to form carbonic
acid, which then dissociates to bicarbonate, carbonate, and hydrogen ions. The
higher concentration of hydrogen ions makes seawater acidic, but this process
is buffered on long time scales by the interplay of seawater, seafloor carbonate
sediments, and weathering on land."
It's incredibly ironic that Jane Q. Public and Lonny Eachus both point to paleoclimate evidence to support their dismissal of ocean acidification. Honisch et al. 2012 also discusses the observed consequences of releasing CO2 more quickly, such as during the end-Permian and PETM.
Paleoclimate evidence shows that ocean acidification depends on the rate of CO2 emissions, not the amount in the atmosphere.
Further, it has been shown that DAILY VARIATION of ocean pH at a given location is greater than any change attributable to CO2. [Lonny Eachus]
Also, studies have shown that the pH in a given location of the ocean typically varies every day far more than any amount that can be attributed to CO2. [Jane Q. Public]
Daily variations can be ~10C or more, but during the end-Permian a ~10C rise in the long term global average temperature coincidentally happened when ~90% of all species went extinct. Furthermore, the marine extinction pattern has ocean acidification's fingerprints on it. Knoll et al. 2007 (PDF) showed that during the end-Permian extinction, ~85% of genuses like coral with aragonite (CaCO3) skeletons went extinct, but only ~5% of genuses like fish with other skeletons went extinct. The rapid CO2 increase during the PETM also led to a similar albeit less severe marine extinction pattern. Again by coincidence?
Corals evolved during the Cambrian Era with CO2 7-20X higher than today. "Ocean acidificiation" is just another scam. pic.twitter.com/AufWkV57hR ["Steve Goddard" retweeted by Lonny Eachus]
Slashdot Mirror
Leave you in peace so you can keep baselessly accusing scientists of fraud, while you're a man dishonestly posing as a woman on the internet?
So when you claimed that most people who bothered to look have referred to you as a gal, you weren't claiming to be a woman instead of a man named Lonny Eachus?
So after you cheered for entrepreneurs with testicles and someone objected, you asked "who should be more offended than me?" because you couldn't imagine that actual women might be more offended than a man like Lonny Eachus who poses as a woman on the internet?
So when you said you're not a lesbian, you said that because you're actually a man named Lonny Eachus who couldn't possibly be a lesbian?
So now you're denying that you ever claimed to be a woman. Are you lying, or have you already forgotten all the links above? Haven't you noticed your pseudonym? It's supposed to tell everyone you're not a dude like Lonny Eachus. This isn't a game of 20 questions. It's just one question, repeated 20 times or more if necessary. Are you Lonny Eachus?
I never asked you to say what your identity is. I simply asked you to confirm what you've been saying for years, that you're a woman who can't possibly be a man named Lonny Eachus. I'm just asking you to say what your identity isn't. Should be easy, unless you're a pathological liar like Lonny Eachus.
If you aren't Lonny Eachus, and are in fact a woman who isn't a man named Lonny Eachus, then you shouldn't have a problem saying that. After all, it's not like you're a pathological liar, right?
So just to be clear, you're swearing on your honor that you (Jane Q. Public) are not Lonny Eachus? Jane Q. Public is placing all her credibility on her claim that Jane is a woman who isn't a man named Lonny Eachus? Please answer directly for the historical record.
How hard could it be to understand that Lonny Eachus is reinforcing sexist female stereotypes by posing as a woman who's completely irrational, expects special treatment and can't keep a single thought straight in his head for more than a couple of minutes and then getting hyper-emotional when called on it?
Very hard, apparently, judging by Jane/Lonny's hilarity. It's okay when Lonny acts out all these sexist female stereotypes as "@eachus" because at least that way people see that some men also exhibit these negative traits. In this sense, Lonny's tantrums actually fight these sexist female stereotypes. But when Lonny Eachus poses as Jane Q. Public and acts the same way, those pathological lies make all women look bad. Maybe this would be clearer if Jane hadn't ignored my first comment, so here it is again:
Very well. Let's cut the bullshit. You are Lonny Eachus, a man posing as Jane Q. Public who lies about being female. By now that's almost a dozen links where Lonny Eachus lies about his own gender. How could anyone trust Lonny Eachus to tell the truth about anything important when Lonny Eachus lies about his own gender?
Your lame attempts to deflect attention away from your pathological lies must seem pathetic even to you. I don't need to justify [A] debunking your public civilization-paralyzing misinformation. In fact, considering the stakes, I'd have to justify ignoring it. I can't.
Lonny Eachus's sock-puppet account "Jane Q. Public" finds [B] sock-puppet accounts to be unacceptable behavior, and piles paranoia on that irony by wrongly accusing me [D] of creating an account with a hacked name that looked exactly like Jane Q. Public. I watched that hilarious incident, but I don't know how they hacked Jane Q. Public's name when it should've already been taken. If you ever find out who did that, please let me know because I'd like to buy them a drink. And if you ever find the missing [C] in your list, please let me know.
How funny that you're still speculating about illegal behavior, after I told you that I'm just debunking your public comments while you've quoted from illegally obtained private emails. In fact, you've even argued that up-skirt panty shots should be legal because they happen in public:
"... Did they show you their genitals on purpose? Is she hanging out of her dress in order to give you a peek? Or are you snooping? ... if you're sitting across from someone on the bus, how can they prove they didn't intend to uncross their legs while wearing no panties; they simply slipped or forgot. (Actually, forgot shouldn't be an exception anyway because that's negligence. But it's still a lack of intent.) As for (2), let's say they flash you deliberately, you take a picture (because after all, it's public), and then later they lie about their "intent". What about the woman who has sex at a party and then when she sobers up lies because she regrets her actions? Hell, things like
See your entire posting history. That anonymous woman described you perfectly: "completely irrational, expecting special treatment and unable to keep a single thought straight in your head for more than a couple of minutes and then getting hyper-emotional when called on it."
But since you asked, here are a few more examples where Lonny Eachus, through his Jane sock-puppet, has reinforced sexist stereotypes:
"Talk about crybabies. Sheesh. She complains about a phenomenon that is caused by women (since studies for over 20 years have repeatedly and consistently shown that women simply tend not to choose to go into STEM careers in the first place), then uses that as a springboard to further complain that she doesn't get enough Federal assistance for women! I mean, come on! It's one thing to discuss the issue of "not enough women in IT" (which has been discussed to death already), and quite another to so blatantly whine about it." [Jane Q. Public, 2012-05-27]
"... Then there are those who simply prefer to ignore the facts and treat it like some kind of giant male conspiracy. I think you can tell which side of that fence I am on." [Jane Q. Public, 2012-05-27]
"... for every "OMG I'm offended!" pseudo-feminist out there, there is another who really, really enjoys being slobbered over as a booth babe. ..." [Jane Q. Public, 2013-06-27]
"...most women decided on careers outside of tech before they even entered high school. Based on personal preferences, not some perception (real or otherwise) of discrimination. ..." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-03-04]
"... most "feminists" I have met did not really want equality; they wanted advantage." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-04-26]
"... men should take some responsibility for birth control (condoms or whatever), but to trick somebody in that manner and then try to hold them responsible is one of the most despicable acts I can imagine. In general I would call it worse than rape because, again in general, it will have longer and more profound, tangible effect. ..." [Jane Q. Public, 2012-08-20]
Jane seems to claim that child support payments are more profound and last longer than psychological scars, which instantly vanish after 18 years (right?). My personal reaction involved the world's smallest violin, and astonishment that a woman would make such a claim. I'm not astonished anymore, but note that equating balls with courage might offend actual
Very well. Let's cut the bullshit. You are Lonny Eachus, a man posing as Jane Q. Public who lies about being female. By now that's almost a dozen links where Lonny Eachus lies about his own gender. How could anyone trust Lonny Eachus to tell the truth about anything important when Lonny Eachus lies about his own gender?
Your lame attempts to deflect attention away from your pathological lies must seem pathetic even to you. I don't need to justify [A] debunking your public civilization-paralyzing misinformation. In fact, considering the stakes, I'd have to justify ignoring it. I can't.
Lonny Eachus's sock-puppet account "Jane Q. Public" finds [B] sock-puppet accounts to be unacceptable behavior, and piles paranoia on that irony by wrongly accusing me [D] of creating an account with a hacked name that looked exactly like Jane Q. Public. I watched that hilarious incident, but I don't know how they hacked Jane Q. Public's name when it should've already been taken. If you ever find out who did that, please let me know because I'd like to buy them a drink. And if you ever find the missing [C] in your list, please let me know.
How funny that you're still speculating about illegal behavior, after I told you that I'm just debunking your public comments while you've quoted from illegally obtained private emails. In fact, you've even argued that up-skirt panty shots should be legal because they happen in public:
"... Did they show you their genitals on purpose? Is she hanging out of her dress in order to give you a peek? Or are you snooping? ... if you're sitting across from someone on the bus, how can they prove they didn't intend to uncross their legs while wearing no panties; they simply slipped or forgot. (Actually, forgot shouldn't be an exception anyway because that's negligence. But it's still a lack of intent.) As for (2), let's say they flash you deliberately, you take a picture (because after all, it's public), and then later they lie about their "intent". What about the woman who has sex at a party and then when she sobers up lies because she regrets her actions? Hell, things like that have happened throughout history, and of course it's not just women, or sex. ..." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-03-07]
"...I've been in LOTS of situations in which things under a dress were made public... intentionally or otherwise. But at least some of those times were definitely intentional. ..." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-03-07]
"... some woman standing on those steps lifts up her dress. ... it isn't a matter of "her asking for it", like some people would say if she walked down the wrong alley at night in a skimpy dress. (You and I would probably agree t
Initially I only cared about debunking your endless flood of misinformation (more on that later) but here's another reason why I care:
"... You are really pissing me off here because you are acting out the worst sexist stereotypes of women: completely irrational, expecting special treatment and unable to keep a single thought straight in your head for more than a couple of minutes and then getting hyper-emotional when called on it. You are the kind of woman who makes it that much harder for the rest of us women to be judged on our abilities instead of the same old, ugly stereotypes you've spent the day reinforcing right here. Shame on you." [Someone to Jane, 2012-09-09]
That anonymous woman would probably be even more pissed off (justifiably so) to find out that Jane is actually a man posing as a woman on the internet. It's bad enough when actual women reinforce sexist female stereotypes, but it's utterly unacceptable for men to pose as women to make all women look bad.
So why do I care? I care because I have a mother, a grandmother, aunts, sisters, and nieces who indirectly suffer because of the sexist stereotypes you're acting out. Please stop lying, and please try to find it in your heart to stop posing as a woman while reinforcing sexist female stereotypes.
It might be a romantic coincidence that Jane and Lonny Eachus are both Sky Dragon Slayers, 9/11 Truthers, and Obama Birthers who deny the existence of dark matter/energy and dislike the word homophobe. Jane isn't a lesbian, Lonny Eachus isn't gay, and both Jane and Lonny Eachus have ferrets and talk about asshole diameter. So if you two lovebirds aren't already hooking up, you really should!
Lonny Eachus went on a similar rant about that exact survey just last night. What a coincidence!
The linked NOAA article certainly did provide maps of May temperature anomalies and May temperature percentiles. Far from showing "world record cold virtually everywhere" they show absolutely no "record coldest" grids, and quite a few "record warmest" grids.
Again, no. I've previously told you that we're not experiencing El Nino yet, but obviously you ignored NOAA in favor of your uncited "neighborhood meteorologist". NOAA still states that "ENSO-neutral conditions continue" but forecasts a 70% chance of an El Nino this summer.
And again, May temperature percentiles show that only Louisiana and south Texas were even "cooler than average" (not "much cooler than average" or "record coldest"). The rest of the continental U.S. was either near average, warmer than average, or much warmer than average (especially Alaska).
There's also plenty of time to bash my head against a wall. That would be more fun and more productive than "talking" with you.
I'd rather not spend my birthday responding to "questions" like these. Pass.
Citation for PETM warming not due to GHG like CO2/methane?
So instead of researching actual historical data by simply clicking on the link I provided, you ignored the uncertainties on 4 years of data and project a highly uncertain short term "trend" backwards over 100 years? Wow.
Most extinctions are caused by multiple stresses; rapid CO2 emissions stress ecosystems via rapid warming and ocean acification. Rapid warming during the PETM stressed the land, causing turnover and causing insects to proliferate but causing no major extinctions. Rapid warming and ocean acidification induced by rapid CO2 emissions affected the oceans, causing the benthic extinction event that Alagret et al. 2009 attributed mainly to the rapid warming due to rapid CO2 emissions. Since ocean acidification affected benthic species but not land species, it's either responsible for the fact that the PETM affected benthic species worse than on land... or something else is. Regardless, we can agree that the most significant stresses leading to PETM benthic extinctions are CO2-induced rapid warming and CO2-induced ocean acidification.
Extinction and recovery of benthic foraminifera across the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum at the Alamedilla section (Southern Spain)
Rapid Acidification of the Ocean During the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum
Rapid and sustained surface ocean acidification during the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum
Ocean acidification and surface water carbonate production across the Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum
Quoting 3" for the Marshalls makes it clear that Jane is talking about the total sea level rise, not the annual rise. Total global average sea level rise over the last century (1914-2014) is more like ~6 inches (see fig. 5 of Church and White 2011. Jane obviously doesn't remember the exact figure, because the rise Jane's memory provides is ~24x smaller than the actual observed rise.
Anyway, sea level rise can vary regionally due to factors like the gravity of thinning ice sheets.
They do work against each other, but our CO2 emissions are so rapid that they overwhelm the solubility effect. Once again, what you're dismissing as "alarmism" is actually mainstream science. Temperatures are going up, and dissolved CO2 is also going up.
I tried to explain this point at WUWT, to no avail: Use Henry’s Law to calculate the CO2 due to the ~0.8C surface warming since the Industrial Revolution. You’ll find that only ~20ppm of the actual ~100ppm rise could even hypothetically be explained by the ocean outgassing
So the reason CO2 in the ocean can increase at the same time surface temperatures increase is because that CO2 comes from our use of fossil fuels, not ocean outgassing. And we're adding to the atmosphere much faster than the warming oceans can lose their dissolved CO2 due to Henry's Law.
If atmospheric CO2 increases slowly, ocean pH doesn't change significantly because it's buffered by carbonates and land weathering on long time scales. See Fig. 2 in Honisch et al. 2012 (PDF):
"When CO2 dissolves in seawater, it reacts with water to form carbonic acid, which then dissociates to bicarbonate, carbonate, and hydrogen ions. The higher concentration of hydrogen ions makes seawater acidic, but this process is buffered on long time scales by the interplay of seawater, seafloor carbonate sediments, and weathering on land."
It's incredibly ironic that Jane Q. Public and Lonny Eachus both point to paleoclimate evidence to support their dismissal of ocean acidification. Honisch et al. 2012 also discusses the observed consequences of releasing CO2 more quickly, such as during the end-Permian and PETM.
Paleoclimate evidence shows that ocean acidification depends on the rate of CO2 emissions, not the amount in the atmosphere.
Daily variations can be ~10C or more, but during the end-Permian a ~10C rise in the long term global average temperature coincidentally happened when ~90% of all species went extinct. Furthermore, the marine extinction pattern has ocean acidification's fingerprints on it. Knoll et al. 2007 (PDF) showed that during the end-Permian extinction, ~85% of genuses like coral with aragonite (CaCO3) skeletons went extinct, but only ~5% of genuses like fish with other skeletons went extinct. The rapid CO2 increase during the PETM also led to a similar albeit less severe marine extinction pattern. Again by coincidence?
No Lonny, it's not a scam. Extremely ra